Great work. Thank you for a very stimulating blog which addresses many of the issues that most Christians lack the resolve to deal with. Even though I do not agree with some of what is posted here, it is necessary and challenging and much appreciated. Please, keep up the great work.

Thanks so much, Michael.

I hope you will continue reading and commenting.

Happy New Year!

Dee and Deb – great work in 2010, best wishes for more of the same in 2011. About the Cheetohs and basement comments: Perry Noble, pastor of NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC, has been one of the most vocal, harsh critics of bloggers using raw ad hominem attacks. He refers to bloggers and other critics as “jackasses”, and has several sermons and podcasts on giving advice to pastors on how to “ignore the jackasses”. But he also has called people who have a hard time settling down into one church “spiritual whores”, so such attacks and gutter talk is par for the course with Perry.

Lydia,

I always appreciate your comments here at TWW. You have so much valuable information to share. Let’s keep focusing on God’s truth in 2011.

Blessings!

Tom R, this Perry guy sounds like a lovely individual.

Lydia

Happy New Year. I am finally back in the saddle and chomping at the bit. I saw a very funny episode of a new favorite show of mine called Human Target. A family was being pursued by men who wanted to kill them and they didn’t know why. One theory was that the wife started a blog and was writing things about her neighbors. The son and father kept moaning about her blog. Ended up not being the reason but my family sure put me through some ribbing.

I just discovered your Blog. Very good work, ~ DMF

The “New” Calvinism

According to the media, “New Calvinism is sweeping the younger generation of Christians” and claims “it’s movement has young believers going back to the roots – namely, to scripture and the sovereignty of God” (See New Calvinism). So just exactly what is New Calvinism, and how is it any different from Old Calvinism?

Let me make it perfectly clear: there are many who call themselves Calvinists and I believe many of them are born again believers who are saved by the grace of God. They have placed their faith in Christ, and Christ alone for their salvation. Regardless of what they call themselves, I praise God for their redemption.

Anyone who has read this blog on a consistent basis knows that I love Calvinists, and more importantly, I believe that – God loves Calvinists – because Calvinists are people. On the other hand, I despise Calvin-ism, because Calvinism teaches that God is an arbitrary autocrat who arranged the fall of human beings and then sends many of them to eternal punishment for being and doing precisely what He predestined them to be and do, beings whose sole purpose for existence is, as Calvin put it, “to glorify God by their destruction”. The good news is that the god of Calvinism does not exist. The bad news, or sad news, is that so many people (Calvinists) believe in and worship this god.

There are many “off shoots” or “splinter groups” within the world of Calvinism. When speaking with someone about their Calvinist beliefs, it is extremely important to find out what “version” of Calvinism they believe in. For example, there are John Calvin Calvinists and Andrew Fuller Calvinists; Arthur W. Pink Calvinists; James White Calvinists; Loraine Boetner Calvinists; R.C. Sproul Calvinists; John Piper Calvinists; Mark Driscoll Calvinists; Albert Mohler Calvinists; Vincent Cheung Calvinists; Westboro Baptist Calvinists; Presbyterian Calvinists; Baptist Calvinists; furthermore, there are Extreme and Moderate Calvinists; Hyper and Hypo Calvinists; Hard and Soft Calvinists; Hard Determinists and Soft Determinists; 5 point Calvinists; 4 pointers; 3 pointers; 2 pointers; and so on.

And now we have “New Calvinists”. After doing some research on this “new” movement, it appears to me that New Calvinism is just another Calvinist name that some call Mohlerism (named after Dr. Mohler). Dr. Albert Mohler is the ninth president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The appointment of Dr. Mohler to the office of president marked a significant shift to return the seminary to conservative biblical theology, which I applaud. In fact, I respect Dr. Mohler and his work; however, Dr. Mohler is also a Calvinist, and it is his Calvinist teachings that I disagree with.

So, what is “New” Calvinism? As mentioned above, New Calvinism is Dr. Mohler’s version of Calvinism. It is a strategic attempt to disarm critics of Calvinism into believing that this New Calvinism is not like the Calvinism of old. However, once you get past the marketing and really examine what New Calvinism teaches, you will find that there is nothing really new at all, except for the way they present (or disguise) their belief system.

My question for the “New” Calvinist, is, if Calvinism is really true, then why change? Calvinists, like Mohler, understand the real threat to Calvinism is John Calvin and its historic Calvinist teachings; thus, by calling it “new”, it gives the impression that “it’s different”, “it’s better”, and “it’s improved”. But this is nothing more than a marketing trick aimed at Christians (especially college students) who are constantly being targeted by Calvinists. Calvinists, or should I say “New” Calvinists are trying to distance themselves from their founder John Calvin (a known murderer who had many erouneous beliefs) and make it more appealing by calling it new. The strategy is no different than what the Mormon Church did when they renamed their church the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and also distanced the church from it’s founder Joseph Smith (See Mormon Church Name Change).

New Calvinism’s marketing plan is nothing more than a ploy to deceive unsuspecting Christians into believing that Calvinism “now” lines up with biblical Christianity. It’s spin doctors are men like Dr. Albert Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and the list goes on and on. Don’t be fooled, New Calvinism is still Calvinism. It doesn’t matter how you spin it – or what you call it – it’s the same man-made philosophical system built on the foundations of dead men, such as, John Calvin & St. Augustine, instead of the living and infallable word of God – The Bible.

defendingmyfaith.blogspot.com

DMF,

One statement struck me, you said The good news is that the god of Calvinism does not exist.

What is your justification for making that statement, could you go into a bit more detail for me.

Thanks

Next time you run into a Calvinist, ask them if they have free will to sin once they are born again. :O0

Karlton, Your words on this blog seem to confirm that point 5 is not true. :o)

I always thought new Calvinism simply meant “neo-Calvinism”, which differs from the American Presbyterianism of the 19th century mostly in its apologetics and rejection of reformed two kingdom theology (called radical two kingdom theology by its critics.

So what makes this “new” calvinism distinct from the historic views on the doctrines of grace and also from neo-Calvinism with its emphasis on cultural transformation (which is considered a dangerous emphasis by those of us who hold the opposite view)?

I’m glad to be one who believes that the Reformed confessions generally set forth what Scripture teaches. When someone proves to me that you cannot find a doctrine that is in my confession in Scripture I’ll gladly give it up – as I’ve done over the years with various B and C doctrines. Until then wherever theologians have systematized what I see in Scripture well I have no problem learning from them. That includes Augustine and Calvin as well as the Arminian of all Arminians, William Law.

Lydia, if some Baptists have not historically been reformed, what do you make of the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689? Both documents have segments that are word-for-word identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the three Reformed confessions.

I personally find aspects of 2 and most of 3 untenable. They are based on a particular view of certain scriptures, but essentially dismiss all scriptures that imply the opposite of their conclusion.

The scripture tells us those whom he foreknew, he predestined. This sounds to me like He knows who will and will not chose Him, and so He makes sure they get a chance to do so. Not like what 2 implies.

And 3 seems like it violates John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish, but have eternal life.”

To say God did an end run and arbitrarily ‘fixed’ who the ‘whosoever’ are seems like a bit of textual manipulation to me.

Zeta

Jim

Deb & Dee,

I am fairly new to the world of blogging. I really like your blog, and I am thankful for your contributions. And yes I agree “It’s time that like-minded Christians band together on the internet and get the word out about the so-called “New Calvinists” . Please contact me via email. (DMF)

By the way, I read your piece on Mark Driscoll, and it was so spot on. I emailed the link to a Mom who had a similar experience. Again, keep up the great work!

Do I have your permission to put your Blog on my Blog-Roll?

DMF,

We are so thrilled that you found our blog. Although our primary focus has become spiritual abuse, we have written extensively on those who label themselves as “New Calvinists”. Actually, we have coined a term for them — Calvinistas — and we define it in our glossary of terms.

Shortly after starting our blog on March 19, 2009, we did a five-part series on Mark Driscoll. You can access our posts through our Categories section (look under “M” for Mark Driscoll) or by clicking on April 2009. It’s been almost two years since I wrote about Driscoll, and my emotions haven’t changed a bit.

We occasionally feature guest writers here at TWW and would like to post your explanation of the New Calvinsts that you shared on our blog soon. We will be sure to link to your website.

We hope you will become a regular reader and commenter here at TWW. Together, we can make a difference!

Karlton,

For me there is no difference. It doesn’t matter if the word “pleasure” is used or “will” is used, the effects are the same.

Please help me understand your position on how God’s omniscience has anything to do with supporting Limited Atonement? Either Christ died for all, or he didn’t. To somehow claim that God’s foreknowledge is justification to “limit” His atonement, sounds like trying to cram a square peg into a round whole.

Regarding the motive of money and other things that you mention, there is no question that some “religious” people do things with improper motives, but to paint all of Christianity this way is harmful and unbiblical. Following this type of rationale would call into question the missionary journey’s of Paul and to reject verses like Matthew 28:19-20.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into your reply, and if I am please forgive me. On the otherhand, if I correctly understand your argument, it sounds like your issue is not with a non-Calvinist like me, but the Bible.
—–

The kids just got home from an FCA conference. ..I have to run. For the record, I am married with five kids. My basement is unfinished, and I am still wearing the tie from work…although, I must admit, I do like Cheetos 😉

Am definitely not (nor have I ever been) a Calvinist.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding how so-called 5-Point Calvinism ever became acceptable to so many Protestants. (But that’s just me.)

It all evokes Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which I read for HS English shortly before my own conversion. I felt then – and still feel – that I could never follow a god who acted in that manner toward human beings. At this point, I believe that the god described by Edwards is not-God.

Lydia – you define Calvinist pretty close to how most of us “TRs” (truly Reformed, it’s usually pejoratively used to mean “stickler”) defined Reformed. I
can grant you that as long as you define Calvinist to mean holding to all of Calvin’s teachings no baptist is Calvinist. You might be surprised to find that even the PCA would not ordain John Calvin as a pastor due to some of his teachings. If one has to hold to all of Calvin to be a Calvinist, count me out.

DMF – I am a rather odd Presbyterian who holds to most, but not all, of the Westminster Confession of Faith. I am also a credo baptist, you see. When it comes to the doctrines of grace, though, I’m on board.

In my searching of Scripture I have found all five points of Calvinism (not originally proposed by Calvin, but somehow bearing his name) there. I have not found any warrant for the state-wide church proposed by Calvin. In fact that’s why the American presbyterian church had to amend the Westminster Confession of Faith – we had to get rid of any vestiges of the mixing of church and state. It’s also why I’m suspicious of neo-Calvinism.

I have to question your characterization of U and L. You talk about “randomess” in the idea that God chooses. Yet the Scriptures clearly, clearly teach that God is wise beyond our knowing. “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33) and yet a God of order (I Cor. 14:33). The doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement are not supposed to be extrapolated to teach that God randomly selects a few and nyah-nyah-nyah to everyone else. They are simply supposed to reflect the Scriptures that God is a hardener of hearts (Ex. 9:12) as well as a chooser of his people in love, not randomness (Ephesians 1:3-14). And I picked the word choose because it’s in the passage.

During my undergrad years I went through a period of strongly questioning limited atonement at the prompting of theology professors. The simplest reason I’ve heard for questioning L is “when the Bible says ‘all’ in places like John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Cor. 5:14-15, I Tim. 2:3-6, I Tim. 4:10, etc. it means all.” At the same time I’ve seen pretty good arguments for places where the Bible meant all in a less than universal sense – I don’t believe that the flood in Genesis covered the whole earth, but that the word was used more loosely there. There’s also Luke 2:1 and Romans 1:8 where all simply can’t mean all. And I read in the high priestly prayer Christ talking to the Father about those whom God has given him (John 17), none of whom are lost, and have to balance that against the use of ‘all.’

In particular with unlimited atonement I find it hard to believe that Christ could die and bear the penalty for sins for all people, but then those who reject him ultimately will have to bear that penalty for sin again. Wouldn’t that make God a vindictive and cruel God who punishes twice?

Watcher,

Thanks for your reply. I am trying to understand what version of reformed theology you ascribe to. You suggest that you’re an “odd Presbyterian” and yet at the same time you’re a “credo Baptist”. As mentioned in my first comment, I suggested there and numerous versions of Calvinist beliefs out there, and based on your reply, it would appear that I need to add to the list. Please understand, I am just trying to understand what you really believe? Regarding the doctrines of grace, I would understand this to mean that you are in alignment with the 5 Points of Calvinism (TULIP). Is this correct? Also, do you believe that you are one of God’s Elect, and if so, how do you know?
—————–
Regarding the randomness of “U” & “L”:

I will use the Westminster Confession as the basis for my answer since you hold this document as the basis of your belief system (at least with respect to the Doctrines of Grace).

Westminster Confession: Chapter III, paragraphs 1-7
“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: … By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, while others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed: and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto … The rest of mankind God was pleased … to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin.”

If “mankind is predestinated and foreordained before the foundations of the world”, “without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes” …then it would follow that God’s choice of man’s salvation (or damnation) is not conditioned on anything. If someone or something is chosen without any criteria or conditions, then this means the choice is random. What other option is there?

Westminster Confession: Chapter X, paragraphs 1-4:
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ … This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein … Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, … yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.”

Westminster Confession: Chapter III, paragraph 6
Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

According the Westminster Confession, unless a person mysteriously appears on God’s “master list” for eternal life, he is damned; thus, the important question then, is how can one get on this important list? Good question. According to Calvinism & the Westminster Confession of Faith, the only way a person can be added onto the list, is if God puts the person on the list. OK, how does God decide who goes on the list and who doesn’t? Well, there is no criterion; it’s unconditional (Remember “U”). Now we come to “L” which states that God’s atonement was only for the elect. In other words, God died only for those He chose. So how can one be elected or put on this list? Again, we’re back to where we started… according to Calvinism and the Westminster Confession, the “master list” was created before the foundations of the world, it can not be changed or altered, and those who are put on the list are put there by God on no basis whatsoever, except by God’s random choice. The implication of this is that Christ did not die for all men, but only those whose names, which randomly appear, on His “master list”.

———-

Regarding your reference to God being a hardener of hearts (Ex. 9:12).

Romans 9:17-18 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Did God predestine Pharaoh to sin and rebel against Him? Not at all! God, because God is sovereign, He foreknew of Pharaoh’s choices before they ever took place and God foreknew that Pharaoh would never honor the true and living God. So God used Pharaoh to fulfill His purposes as He released Israel from bondage in Egypt. Furthermore, we must not forget that Pharaoh hardened his own heart five times before God finally intervened.

(Exodus 9:16) It is not said that Pharaoh was born for, but was raised to the throne for a particular purpose. That purpose was so God could show His power. It also doesn’t say that God raised Pharaoh up to destroy him. His power could have been shown by Pharaoh yielding to God, but unfortunately for Pharaoh, this would not be the case. Pharaoh’s conduct made it necessary for God to punish him. Pharaoh’s election is not of an individual to destruction, but of a man to be a king for a particular purpose. The destruction came upon Pharaoh because, in that position, he resisted God.

(Exodus 9:15) God shows mercy and compassion according to His own sense of right, not according to any human code. What must not be forgotten in the case of Pharaoh and what appears distinctly, from the whole narrative in Exodus, is that Pharaoh’s hardening was at first his own act. Five times it is said that Pharaoh hardened, or made heavy his own heart (Exodus 7:13; 7:22; 8:15; 8:32; 9:7), after giving Pharaoh several chances, God eventually intervenes and hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9:12) and even after that it is said that Pharaoh hardened himself (Exodus 9:34); thus, Pharaoh closed his own heart to God’s appeals which eventually grew harder by his stubborn resistance to God’s judgments, until at last God, as a punishment for his obstinate rejection and rebellion, God gave him over to his mad folly. Pharaoh himself once said, “I have sinned; the Lord is righteous” (Exodus 9:27). If Pharaoh did not harden his own heart, the result would have been different.
——
Your last point you suggest that the by offering atonement to all could somehow make God vindictive and cruel because those who reject Christ would somehow have to bear the consequence of their sin twice. I am not certain I understand your rationale on how those who reject Christ would somehow suffer twice? My question for you is this: Which do you think is more vindictive and cruel 1) Giving man the choice to bear the consequences of his own choices? or 2) Giving man no choice whatsoever and being sent to eternal punishment for being and doing precisely what God predestined man to be and do?
——
p.s. I do agree with your assessment that God is wise and all knowing, and He is a God of order; Furthermore, I believe the sovereign will of God and the freedom of man are both taught in scripture, and if we cannot reconcile the two, it is because the two are so infinitely above us. God promises the following: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:31

p.s. I am also in agreement on the Fugitive. It’s a favorite of mine. Time with the family, so I need to run. May God bless!

DMF

Lydia, without objective IQ tests I don’t usually quibble about which theologian was the smartest. After all, Scripture says that “not many of you were wise,” so when a Christian comes up intelligent I view it as a rarity (which includes the fact that I don’t view myself as so smart).

DMF (DTF?), I get my beliefs on what we reformed-types prefer to call the doctrines of grace from an amalgam of sources. BTW – we prefer to call them the doctrines of grace because the name “five points of Calvinism” is misleading since Calvin didn’t formulate those points. I grew up under a pastor whose strongest influences theologically were probably Jonathan Edwards, Robert Dabney, and John Gerstner and who is far more deeply read among the Puritans and Old Princetonians (if you are classifying Calvinists you’ll want to add Old Princeton to your list, for all it is out of favor with the Neo-Cals today) than any more modern theologian. I went to a Christian college where I encountered largely four pointers among the professors and Arminians amongst the student body. I attended a church there that was heavily influenced by neo-Calvinism without ever using any of the buzz words. I’ve read my share of the more modern neo-Cals and Kuyper. My strongest influences are probably my earliest and I’ve tended to drift back to them, although Dabney often makes me fume.

On ‘U’, you miss a perfectly rational reason for why God chose whom he chose – that he used the logic outside of our own understanding that he has not revealed to us as the basis for his “pleasure” (a rather archaic use of the term that in no way connotes randomness, but rather that someone is pleased by a choice that stems naturally from their own inclinations). This is what those of us who believe in a God who has “in his being wisdom [Job 2:3], power [Heb. 1:3], holiness [Rev. 14:5], justice [Ex. 34:7], goodness [Ps. 33:5], and truth [Duet. 32:4]” (Westminster Shorter Catechism q. 4) and also believes in the doctrines of grace believe, as I’ve always understood.

It’s not that if unlimited atonement is true people who reject Christ suffer twice. It is that Christ suffered for them and then they unfairly also have to pay a penalty for sin that was already paid in the death of Christ. It’s that Christ paid a penalty, marked the entire bill as “paid in full” but then God makes one suffer it all over again.

With regards to Pharaoh, I learned 7 or 8 years ago that since Scripture teaches none of the interplay between how God is sovereign and how man is responsible for his sin and chooses it his course is a fool’s game. Within philosophy where the questions between hard determinism, compatibilism or soft determinism, and libertarian free will range fiercely even amongst secular humanists (as Karlton can possibly attest) there are all sorts of possible explanations for the compatibilist position such as God knowing exactly how to set up circumstances so that you do what he’s willed you to do. The Bible doesn’t tell me. It does tell me that both God and Pharoah hardened Pharoah’s heart, and that I am content to believe.

sorry, guys, I didn’t mean to come across as snarky or harsh or however I came across. Just reading some of my friend’s fb postings and it makes me want to cry the way so many of us put our beliefs over loe.

Stunned, the only reason to value these men and women (because women can be theologians too!) is that they help us systematize what’s in the Bible. When they go beyond that, they become worthless. But when they help illuminate Scripture, they show their worth.

So what is it you spend your life on Karlton?

Very cool, doubtful. Thank you for sharing, I really appreciate it.

How I spend my life? That is a great question. I’d say I’m still trying to figure it out. I want to love God, I think. And I want to love others. And I want to see this world made a better place. And I want to find a way to make a million dollars a day, making this world a better place. So far I have yet to find that job description in any “help wanted” ad I’ve read. (You asked for honesty, right?) And I want to stop being addicted to corn chips.

I’m done raising my kids and I’m trying to figure out the next step- the why and hows and how the hecks. Know what I mean? Oh, and I want to see bad guys stop hurting people. Go ahead, call me an idealist. And I want to see people healed and I want suffering to end. (I suppose I could close my eyes and just not look at it, but that probably would not be enough to satisfy my soul.) And I want a foot rub that never stops. (No one ever said I wasn’t shallow.)

So like I said, trying to figure it out.

Karlton,

You said earlier that it makes you sick to see others arguing over imagionary beings, and what a terrible waste of time it is, I just have to ask, are you not guilty of the same charge?

I am sensitive to the fact that you’re an atheist, but I just don’t understand why you’re wasting your time on watching others who are arguing over imagionary beings?

My hope and prayer is one day you will discover why discussions like this matter. Even though I may disagree with someone like Watcher, I still respect his views and thank God for his redemption.

At the risk of opening “the can”, I hope I can say the same of you one day!

DMF

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

As Christians, how should we engage in meaningful debate over Biblical truth? How do we remain firm to our principles, and fight for what we believe to be right without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? Calvinists have every right to believe what they want to, and even though I disagree with their conclusions, I will defend their right to follow their religious convictions until the end. On the other hand, as Christians we are called to protect the truth that God has given us and to defend the faith (Jude 3), which is my motivation for writing on this blog.

“It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. Let me tell you something, friend, it is not love and it is not friendship if we fail to declare the whole counsel of God. It is better to be hated for telling the truth, than to be loved for telling a lie. It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated. It’s better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude. It is better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie. There is only one Gospel and Paul said, ‘If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed’ ” Adrian Rogers

Got to run~

“Lydia, without objective IQ tests I don’t usually quibble about which theologian was the smartest. After all, Scripture says that “not many of you were wise,” so when a Christian comes up intelligent I view it as a rarity (which includes the fact that I don’t view myself as so smart).”

Watcher, a none answer. The terms Calvinism, Calvin and Calvinists are used all the time by the “Reformed” crowd. They have tried “Doctrines of Grace” and other monikers but Calvin sticks. I think that is a blessing more than anything because if someone dares do the research on him, personally, they will question whether he was one of us at all.

Lydia, what is ST?

Whose theology is 100% correct?

No ones. As if our puny minds could contain the God of all the universe. Heeee.

Lydia, no one’s systematic theology is 100% correct. But we all systematize the Bible. You do, I do, theologians do, and people who want to just know Christ and him crucified do. Our brains make systems and connections, they are designed that way. Without systematizing the Bible we would have no trinity and no doctrine of Christ’s deity and humanity as two natures in one person. Certainly some systematic theologies are more about philosophy than the Bible, but that doesn’t make the whole endeavor wrong.

DMF, you shouldn’t make assumptions. My father is not a pastor. As a military brat, I had several pastors but two for longer than others due to the way our moves ended up working out.

I have to admit that I don’t worry about being among the elect or not being among the elect. Focusing too much on who is elect smacks of hyper-Calvinism to me. I focus on what the Scripture teaches about assurance of salvation which is assuring whether one believes in compatibilism or libertarian free will. 2 Peter 1:10 says that we are supposed to “be all the more diligent to make [our] calling and election sure,” and so I’ve striven to do that throughout my life more and less successfully at various times. I am encouraged that I struggle against sin, even though I’m not always successful, indicating that I have indeed died to sin (Romans 6:2). I’m encouraged when I find in my heart a desire to keep the commandments of God (I John 2:3) and even more so when I do keep them (John 14:15). I find encouragement when I feel in my heart love for others who may not seem terribly lovely to me at the moment, because I know that of myself I’m not a very loving person (I John 3:14). I’m encouraged when I find myself loving the things of God more than the passing things of the world (Romans 8:5-9). In sort, I imagine I look for assurance of salvation the way most Christians do – by searching Scripture for how to find it and praising God diligently for his good work in me when I see the signs in myself. Most of all, I focus on one verse that is as important to us Reformed types as to the most Arminian of Arminians. I know that I “confess with [my] mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in [my] heart that God raised him from the dead” and on that evidence I believe the promise that if this is true of you, “you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

What you like to pejoratively term “the master list” is not my concern. Like Psalm 131 says, I try very hard not to concern myself with things too lofty for me.

Your 1 and 2 is a false choice, you know. It sets out hard determinism and libertarian free will and leaves no room for compatibilism. Humans are given a choice. And every single time, unless God intervenes, they will act to reject him. This is a choice they make, despite the witness of nature, repeated calls of Scripture, preaching they might hear, and earnest pleading from others to the contrary. This is the choice I would make unless my eyes were opened.

I can indeed take you up on your challenge and study Scripture without referencing Reformed commentaries or reciting in my heat pat Reformed answers. But you, DMF, should also look to see that your reading of Scripture is doing justice to the text as well. Don’t read Calvin and the WCF and react to them. Read the Bible and see where they earnestly and honestly got it all from.

I agree with the decision…I find the Church’s behaviour disgusting, but not allowing freedom of expression is often what leads a group towards the extremes of violence. I’d much rather see them, in all their disglory, in public displays of dissent then in violent ones….my only concern would be for a proper police protection for family members and the protest when these events do occur.

The protest was so far away the family did not know they were protesting until they saw it on the news. Also, it is surprising to know that Fred Phelps is a democrat and once ran ran for Governor of Indiana (or is it Kansas?). He also supported Al Gore for Pres in 1988.He also has received awards for Civil Rights work from the NAACP or such. He went to Bob Jones, I think.

The Phelps’ want attention. The media gives it to them. If they were not covered what would be the point?

I agreed with the SC, too. Which does not mean the Phelps’ are not an inbred group of nutcases. Even they should have free speech no matter how repugnant.

How then do you explain the fact that the Trinity, in its current form did not come about until late in the 4th century…it took 400 years for the Holy Spirit to teach those guys?

DMF/Trinity Watcher

I agree with DMF that God does not take pleasure in condemning people to hell. I believe that it is God desire that none should perish as it says in Scripture.

I spent a long time studying the Calvinist view on everything. I would be happy to list the books I’ve read but suffice to say, most Calvinists would approve. However, the more I read, the more frustrated I became. Although the arguments are strong they do not sufficiently answer the questions I have about the character of God.

It is like the explanations I have heard of the Trinity. I know the Trinity is true and confess it but I cannot explain it although my friend, Zeta, has come the closest to helping me understand it. But, most of the explanations are simplistic and do not give me a full picture of something that is way beyond my pay grade.

Here is where I now stand with Calvinism. BTW, it is the same place I stand with Arminianism. Neither fully do it for me. I think all of this is man’s explanation for something that is way, way beyond our comprehension. For someone who likes to say I know something, this is one area in which I say”I don’t know.” This is not from lack of reading, I’ve done quite a bit. It is not for lack of pondering, I do so daily.

I think we may understand more in heaven. But, we will always be the created and he the Creator. We may never fully comprehend this complexity.

Which brings me to my real point. I am frankly tired of people being so cock sure about fine print of doctrine. I see both side, often, and then say, why are you both so sure. Could there be a third option that is a difficult to understand amalgamation of the two or even more.

Calvin was merely a man whose policies in Switzerland left much to be desired. I also find it ridiculous when some of the Calvinistas defend Calvin as if he were Jesus.

So, I have turned into a detractor of the Calvinistas who are completely sure of every issues from election to the age of the earth and exact gender roles in the church. They have reduced the Lord of the Universe to a mere equation.

Then, I try to be a bridge between thoughtful Calvinists and others. I have come out on the side of “Oh I don’t know and neither side makes perfect sense.” And then I merrily take part in the debates. However, never, ever tell me that God sends newborn babies to hell. I don’t believe it. If it is true, I will let HIm break it to me gently in that Glorious Day.

Watcher,

—–
AN APOLOGY

Please excuse the assumption I made earlier. There were not enough details in your reply, and I was just trying to clarify my interpretation of what I read. I will do a better job of not making assumptions in the future.

—-
UN-ANSWERED QUESTION #1

Regarding my question “Are you part of God’s elect, and if so, how do you know?” I’ve read your reply a couple of times, and I am still trying to “decipher” your answer.

You claim that you’re “not worried if you are part of God’s elect or not”, yet you claim that you embrace the Doctrines of Grace; thus, my follow-up question is how could you not care if you are among God’s elect ?, because according to the Doctrines of Grace, election determines whether you are saved or not.

You also claim that you will “focus on what the Scripture teaches about assurance of salvation which is assuring whether one believes in compatibilism or libertarian free will”. Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not asking for a theological debate on compatibilism or libertarian free will, or any other man-made philosophy for that matter. I just care about what the Bible says – pure and simple.

You further claim that you’re encouraged when you struggle against sin; keep the commandments; love others (even when it is not reciprocated); love the things of God versus the things of this world, and then you finish by saying that you do what most Christians do, you search the scriptures, and confess that Jesus is Lord. As good as all these things are, it still fails to answer the one question I have been asking all throughout my response to you. “Are you part of God’s elect, and if so, how do you know?” I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is a critical point in understanding your view of salvation. Are you putting your trust in the things that you’ve done as assurance of your salvation? Or, consider the alternative, if you failed to love others, or the things of God, and if you were indifferent to sin in your life, would you still be assured of your salvation? Matthew 7:23 says “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”. . . The assurance of our salvation is not based on what we have done, but instead, what Christ has already done for us.

You said focusing too much on election has “smacks of hyper-Calvinism”. This is an interesting comment, especially coming from someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, whether you are a hyper-Calvinist or not. If you hold to the Doctrines of Grace, then it follows that you believe election is essential for salvation. The emphasis on the election (or non election) of mankind is a the major theme all throughout the Doctrines of Grace and the Westminster Confession of Faith, it’s not just for hyper-Calvinists, as you seem to imply.

The only conclusion I can draw regarding your reluctance or avoidance to directly answer my question is because you can’t. (nor can any Calvinist for that matter), yet, the Bible clearly tells us differently. Again read John 20:31

The Calvinist must do works to keep his salvation; whereas, the Armenian must do works to prevent losing theirs.

———

GOD’S PLEASURE

In one of your earlier replies, you claim that it pleases God to damn others. Then you go onto to say, that God does not reveal why He does this. Again, if I am misquoting you, please let me know, and I will publicly apologize.

I listed a small sampling of verses that run counter to your argument, and I asked how these verses line up to this argument. (i.e. Ezekiel 18:32;Ezekiel 33:11; John 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 3:9). I have yet to see your response.

———-
GOD’S MASTER LIST

In your last reply, you seem to have a difficult time when I use the word “Master List”. I will admit that no where in any of the works of John Calvin, Westminster Confession of Faith, or Doctrines of Grace, does it mention the word “Master List“. On the other hand, the concept of God having a “Master List” is what Calvin, the Westminster Confession, and the Doctrines of Grace clearly teach. To make sure that I am not taking this out of context, please read the following quote:

Westminster Confession: Chapter III, paragraphs 1-7
“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: … By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, while others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed: and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto … The rest of mankind God was pleased … to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin.”

Again, whether the word “Master List” is used or not, the implication of God putting a Master List together is plainly evident from passages like the one referenced above.

————

#1 or #2

Again, you fail to answer the question. Previously, I asked the following: “Which do you think is more vindictive and cruel 1) Giving man the choice to bear the consequences of his own choices? Or 2) Giving man no choice whatsoever and being sent to eternal punishment for being and Doing precisely what God predestined man to be and do? How can #1 or #2 be a false choice? This is not a trick question, either you can’t answer the question, or you won’t.
——–

OUR CHALLENGE

You have asked me to read the Bible to see where Calvin and the WCF got it all from. The problem is, I have already done what you have asked me to do, which is why I am so deeply opposed to these teachings. It’s a known FACT that “The main features of Calvin’s theology are based on the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustianism” and parts of the WCF are just a mere regurgitation of John Calvin’s teachings.

Our challenge to each other is to be open minded, and to let the Bible be the standard and the final authority when it comes to truth, and my hope and desire is that we both hold fast to this challenge.

~ DMF

Dee,

Well said!

“God insists upon His sovereignty and also upon man’s responsibility. Believe both and preach both, leaving the task of harmonizing with Him”. (William Pettingill)

“The sovereign will of God and freedom of man are taught in scripture, and if we cannot reconcile the two, it is because the two are so infinitely above us” (A.T. Pierson)

“How great is God – beyond our understanding.” (Job 36:26)

True theology is simply believing and rightly interpreting the Bible, but God warns against philosophy and about leaving the simplicity of Christ (Col. 2:8; 2 Cor. 11:3).

——

May God continue to bless you and Deb for all that you are doing with TWW.

All the best ~ DMF

DMF, I have attempted to answer your questions honestly and truthfully. Since I have not used the language that are you are using, you appear to believe I am not answering. This is not my intent. I am intending to be honest and honestly represent my own understanding of Scripture.

I look for assurance of salvation the way the Scriptures have taught me. I believe that to be truly saved, one has to have been chosen in Christ (Eph. 1:4), aka part of the elect. If I see in myself and others have seen in me evidence that I am saved, then by definition as I understand Scripture that would make me part of the elect. It would also make every Christian who has believed differently from I, every baby saved in infancy before an untimely death, and any other God has chosen part of the elect, whether or not that is any person’s consciousness.

I am rather uncomfortable with this question because it feels like a trap. It feels like a way to turn around and say “you think you’re so special! Part of the elect!” when that is not at all my thinking. Thinking as I do makes me understand more of my own inability and God’s glorious grace in saving not only me but millions throughout history and the world through his Son and the work of his Spirit. I desire glory reflected back on God, not to build myself up.

With regards to your question about God’s pleasure, it is something I will have to think more on. Right now, I’m not sure of the answer. I acknowledged before that limited atonement is, in my opinion, the least clear of the five points in Scripture. There seem to be verses on both sides. It is a question I am not totally settled with in my own mind. The fact, though, that if Christ paid for the sins of the world it would seem completely unjust of God to then require some of the world to pay for their sins after they’d been paid for by Christ is a tough one. God is absolutely just. You have never explained why it would be fair for Christ to have died for all but some to have to pay for their sin anyway. If Christ has died for all then universalism seems the position most in keeping with God’s justice.

With regards to your one or two, I did answer the question. Your one and two are a false choice that leaves no room for what I think to be the answer (see the false dilemma, which I don’t believe you are intending but it is what I believe you have presented me inadvertently). I cannot answer the question as stated without being false to what I believe Scripture says. I can re-iterate what I believe Scripture says, though.

I believe the answer is that apart from God man cannot chose him. After the fall – chosen by Adam, a man able to chose sin or not to sin unlike us human beings today – we were put into a state of total inability to desire God. Dead in trespasses and sins doesn’t mean able to suddenly wake up and leave those sins. Like the word all, dead has to mean something. Only with God’s awakening of our hearts allows us to fulfill his command to see his goodness and claim his salvation, which humans joyfully do once they see God for who he really is. So I believe that humans are choosing. They are choosing exactly what they are able to in each circumstance. God cannot be less than a God of justice, mercy, truth, and grace. But I also believe God is ruling. Scripture says so, you also acknowledge this is so. And I believe that what he ordains comes to pass. I believe God is not cruel. How exactly all these things play together is not revealed and beyond me.

These things are not an attempt to dodge, but an attempt to be as truthful as I can. I cannot simply pick a number when the answer is #3 – man chooses and God ordains as Scripture says and this is a perfect testimony to the greatness of our God.

Lydia, I’m curious how you would pull the trinity from Scripture. I know from seeing your very interesting discussions here that you are a wonderful student of the Bible and can probably school me in where the Trinity is taught in the Word.

Karlton, I was messing around about the trinity thing, but frankly, you have absolutely no idea who did and who did not believe in the trinity and when or when they did or how they came to that belief. Neither you nor I know what the heck one soul believed in the year 75AD or in 32AD or in 450AD or any other time. We only know what was written by some theologians. To say that you know that so and so believed such and such a thing at a certain time is neither believable nor logical. Unless of course you now have either a way back machine or the ability to read the minds of the dead. (If you do have that ability please contact my grandmother and ask her where she put her diamond ring from her second husband. I would like it.)

Lydia, thanks for that careful explanation. Your last point is mine also. Systematics is just another way of studying Scripture, and all Christians are to do it.

I just appreciate reading the insights of those who’ve studied before me and then doing my own searches on the issues.

Which brings me to my real point. I am frankly tired of people being so cock sure about fine print of doctrine. I see both side, often, and then say, why are you both so sure. Could there be a third option that is a difficult to understand amalgamation of the two or even more.

Calvin was merely a man whose policies in Switzerland left much to be desired. I also find it ridiculous when some of the Calvinistas defend Calvin as if he were Jesus.

Dee, this is exactly what I think. I just want to follow Jesus.

Ellie

Karlton, you have completely misunderstood what I said. I will write more later but now am off to a date!

Watcher,

First of all, thank you for your response. I do appreciate your honesty and transparency. I will strive to do the same.

——

ELECTION – THAT IS THE QUESTION

You said, and I quote “If I see in myself and others have seen in me evidence that I am saved, then by definition as I understand Scripture that would make me part of the elect”. On the surface, I do not have a problem with your comment. On the other hand, we must be careful when looking at this type of evidence, because it is not exclusive. There are a number of reasons why focusing just on our good works can be a problem.

1) It can be deceptive: For example; Jesus warns in Matthew 7:23 says “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'”.

2) It can lead to pride: Ephesians 2:8-9 says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The problem for Calvinists, is they must do the works to prove to others (and to themselves) that they are saved, and to keep their salvation,; thus, Calvinists must persevere and maintain their good works until the very end; whereas, Armenians must do good works so they can’t lose their salvation. To keep or not to lose, to me they are both saying the same thing – works are necessary. Again, please don’t misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with good works, but when a person starts “trusting” in their works, it can lead to a false sense of security and pride. The assurance of our salvation should never be based on the works that we have done, but instead, on what Christ has already done for us.

——-
You claim to be “truly” saved a person needs to be chosen by God, or elected by God; thus, my question is: How does one know if they are “truly” saved or part of God’s elect? It seems to me you are saying two different things. In one sense you are saying the assurance of a person’s faith is validated by their good works, but then you claim for a person to be “truly” saved they must be chosen, or elected by God. So which one is true? Is it possible to do good works (i.e. Mother Theresa) and not be elected? Is it possible for a person to not do good works (i.e. Adolph Hitler) and still be elected? There are some problems with your definition that still must be clarified.

——–
TRAPPED & GOD’S PLEASURE

You further claim that you’re “rather uncomfortable with this question because it feels like a trap”. Your rationale is that if you answer in the affirmative, it will make you appear as an elitist. Please understand my motive is not to trap you, but rather to help free you from the bondage that you are presently under. Calvinism, or the Doctrines of Grace, teach that God chooses some to be saved, and others to be damned. To make matters worse, these doctrines teach that it pleases God to do these things. To claim that God finds pleasure in the destruction of mankind is offensive to me and libels the holy character of God.

At least you have acknowledged that you struggle with limited atonement, but let me remind you, as a follower of the “5 Points”, if one point is proven false, then all points are proven false. In order to justify or explain election you said, and I quote “you miss a perfectly rational reason for why God chose whom he chose – that he used the logic outside of our own understanding that he has not revealed to us as the basis for his ‘pleasure’ ” In one sense I hear you say, that you struggle with Limited Atonement, but in the same breath you are supporting it. I’m sorry Watcher, I just don’t get. You can’t have it both ways.

——–

PAID IN FULL

You said that I “never explained why it would be fair for Christ to have died for all but some to have to pay for their sin anyway”. To answer the question. Christ paid the price once and for all, but man has a free will to accept this payment or to reject it. Hebrews 10:10 “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL.” God doesn’t force a person to accept this payment (gift), it is freely given, and freely received.

Calvinism argues that if Christ died for all people, and if all people are not saved, then it follows that either Christ has failed, or He really didn’t die for all people; hence, the Doctrines of Grace (Five Points or TULIP) were developed by men to help explain this dilemma.

Have I answered your question? Please let me know.

———–

#1 or #2

Your post on March 1st at 8:36 am, you said “In particular with unlimited atonement I find it hard to believe that Christ could die and bear the penalty for sins for all people, but then those who reject him ultimately will have to bear that penalty for sin again. Wouldn’t that make God a vindictive and cruel God who punishes twice?” Please note, you are the one who proposed the question, and yet when I asked you to distinguish between your point and mine, you claim that you can’t answer the question on the basis that it presents a false dilemma. Again, I believe you are evading the question. My question is simple and not a false dilemma. For the sake of clarity, my question was as follows: “Which do you think is more vindictive and cruel 1) Giving man the choice to bear the consequences of his own choices? Or 2) Giving man no choice whatsoever and being sent to eternal punishment for being and Doing precisely what God predestined man to be and do?

For the record, my answer is #2.

———–

NOT REVEALED

In seems like every time there is a critical matter worthy of discussion you pull out the “not revealed yet trump card”. So far you’ve used the same trump card to avoid answering how God could find pleasure in damning others, and the random choosing of one person over another. All this talk over Systematic Theology , and when it comes to the questions that matter most, the only answer I seem to hear is God has not revealed it to us yet. I will be the first to admit, There are questions that can not be answered adequately on this side of eternity. Yet when it comes to matters to salvation, God does not leave us in the dark. In fact, God’s Word clearly states “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13.
————
DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL

How dead is dead? Regarding man’s depravity (or inability), your position is that because man is dead he can not respond to anything good. In essence, you’re saying the state of man is like a corpse in a cemetery unable to choose good or respond to the Gospel; however, if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, if man is dead, then he can’t do evil or reject the Gospel either. The Bible constantly repeats that the unsaved, who are spiritually dead, should “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and they will be saved”.
————
FINAL THOUGHTS

*I restated my position on why I believe the Doctrines of Grace teaches that God creates an unchangeable “Master List” before creation. I supported my position by using the WCF.

*You have not yet explained how the verses I referenced (i.e. Ezekiel 18:32;Ezekiel 33:11; John 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 3:9) are in alignment with the Pleasure Principle?

*If you would like to answer my questions in private, I will give you my direct email.

*How do you hyper-text in our response box?

*I will be going out of town this weekend, going to Charleston SC to pick up our son from College, so I may not be able to respond until late Sunday.

*Please forgive me if it seems like I am being disrespectful to you and your beliefs. My real prayer is that when this life is over, we will join together in praise of our awesome God!

For those of you that might enjoy a lighthearted, sci-fi ‘ish’, romantic take on the whole ‘predestination vs free will’ thing, you might enjoy “The Adjustment Bureau”. It was for my wife and I a pretty fun little flick, but if you are uncomfortable with a PG-13 level romance, there is one scene you might use for a bathroom break.

Matt Damon of “Bourne Identity” is the lead.

All the Calvnista’s around here should definitely see it 😉

Zeta

DMF, I have appreciated your time and the chance to again hear some of the best arguments in favor of Arminianism from a proponent. It’s always better to learn other viewpoints from their strongest advocates.

At the same time I think this discussion will end up going in circles. As I think through your reasoning and formulate my own from Scripture my prior views are only being cemented. I think your point was more to change my views, and it simply isn’t going to happen.

I hoped to defend Calvinism as one valid reading of Scripture, and in my opinion the one that holds the most credence, but certainly not the only consistent and faithful one. Clearly you have already done plenty of reading that strives to do the same and are unconvinced. Seems like a stand-off to me.

Thanks again for your time and insights.

To hyperlink, use the anchor tag listed in allowable HTML tags below the comment box.

Karlton / Stunned

I’ve enjoyed reading your discussion with Stunned on the Trinity and I wanted to add just a few things.
————

WHEN DOES TRUTH BEGIN?

Karlton on March 4th you asked the following question: “How then do you explain the fact that the Trinity, in its current form did not come about until late in the 4th century…it took 400 years for the Holy Spirit to teach those guys?”

It seems that somehow you are trying to disprove the Trinity by “when” it was formally pronounced; thus, if we use this same logic, then it would follow that the Earth is still flat since Aristotle did not pronounce the earth was round until the 4th century too.

Furthermore, before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church suppressed private interpretation of Scripture, and the “church” controlled the flow of information; however, one of the most important aspects of the Reformation (and the invention of the printing press) was translating the Bible into the common language of the people, and, as a result, the basic principle of private interpretation was born; thus we don’t need a priest or a theologian to interpret the Bible for us…we just need to open the Bible & read it for ourselves.

OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE

Regarding observational evidence, you seem to suggest that Aristotle had observational evidence; whereas, the Christian faith does not; however, you are making the same mistake as those who believed the earth was flat. Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth: For example (i.e. the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse); whereas, the observational evidence to support the arguments for the Trinity, are found in the Bible.

While the word Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, there are numerous Bible passages that point to the Trinity of God; thus it will be very difficult to have a meaningful discussion on this topic unless we agree on what type observational evidence can be used. To discuss the topic of the Trinity, we have to use the Bible as our proof text. It’s only logical to do this, since this is where the concept came from. We must have a common ground to base our arguments on. Otherwise, we will just be throwing out the same canned arguments for both for and against. Please understand, I am not asking you to accept the Bible as truth (I know you’re an atheist), but we can use it as a proof text for the subject matter, which we are discussing.

RULES FOR ENGAGEMENT

If you agree to consider using the Bible as our proof text, then count me in. If you decline, then I will not engage in meaningless debate, time is too precious to waste.

I look forward to your reply,

~ DMF

And Democrats!

Doubtful,

That’s incredible info on CRI. Hank’s wife makes just under $131,000 as a director of planning? Nepotism, especially in ministry, is extremely unwise…

Yeah–I used to listen to Hank a lot, (even got a chance to sit next to him at a talk by Joni Erikson-Tada). But I heard there were some complaints about his wife and the salaries-I was shocked to see the amounts made and the fact that his wife was on the payroll for a significant salary. Sad really……

“And the most rip roaring hyperauthoritarian yahoos I have ever heard of. Did someone mess with their DNA?”

Authoritarianism is just fleshly pride. And pride is the root of all sin.

Mike Gallagher, the radio talk show guy, had the Westboro folks on his show. he was going to try and understand them because as Gallagher said, he was a Christian and did not recognize their brand of Christianity at all.

Problem is, the Westboro folks started proof texting the OT off the bat and Gallagher was so biblically ignorant,.he could not respond in context. It was sad and I was embarrassed for him.